RUTH. - A virtuous Moabite woman, wife of Boaz, grandmother of David (Mt 3:3-6), from the time of the Judges (Ruth 1:1), whose story is told in the book that bears her name.
Ruth, a widow without children, does not abandon her mother-in-law Naomi, who, having lost her husband (Elimelech) and sons, returns to her homeland (ibid. 1). At Bethlehem, Ruth goes to glean in the fields for their sustenance and earns the esteem of Boaz, a relative of Elimelech (ibid. 2). Boaz gladly accepts the invitation to marry Ruth according to the custom of levirate marriage (ibid. 3). After obtaining the renunciation of a kinsman who had prior claim, Boaz marries Ruth; from their son Obed, Jesse is born, the father of David, ancestor of the Messiah (ibid. 4). “The style, simple and limpid, the grace of the narrative, the vivid portrayal of characters and customs place Ruth among the finest models of narrative prose in the Old Testament” (A. Vaccari).
The author, whose identity is unknown, intended to provide the genealogy of David (Ruth 4:18-22) and to show the particular action of Providence in it, as well as to preserve the many precious teachings contained in this gentle and sweet story. There is no trace of any polemical intent. It was written no earlier than the reign of David (ibid. 1:1; 4:7-8-22), and most likely not long after. Indeed, there are many indications in Ruth of the antiquity and historicity of the narrative. Elimelech (ibid. 1:2) corresponds to Illimluk from the texts of el-Amramah and Râs Samrah; “Ephrathites” (ibid. 1:2) from Bethlehem shows that the fusion between the inhabitants of Bethlehem and the Judean clan (Ephrathites) that settled among them had not yet occurred (F.-M. Abel, *Géographie de la Palestine*, II, Paris 1938, p. 276). The concept of a territorial god (Ruth 1:15; 2:11 ff.) is characteristic of ancient times: cf. Judg 3:20; 11:24; inexplicable after the exile (cf. R. Tamisier [V. BIBLICA.], p. 312). The solemn oath formula (Ruth 1:17) is used only in Samuel-Kings. The extension of levirate marriage (ibid. 3-4) corresponds to ancient Hittite and Akkadian customs (cf. Gen 38; C. H. Gordon, *Parallèles nouzies aux lois et coutumes de l’Ancien Testament*, in *Revue biblique*, 42 [1935], p. 37); Deut 25:5-10 limits this law to the brother-in-law (R. Tamisier, pp. 322 ff.). One should also note the ancient customs presented in Ruth 4:1-10, 16 ff., along with the editorial note (ibid. 4:7), and the parallels from Nuzi (cf. R. Tamisier, pp. 323 ff.). The fact that David saves his family from Saul’s wrath by fleeing to the king of Moab (1 Sam 22:3) suggests that there were special relations between David and Moab and strongly supports the historicity of Ruth. Finally, the idyllic details fit precisely within the period of the Judges (Judg 3:11, 30) and the life of the time (L. Desnoyers, *Histoire du peuple hébreu*, I, Paris 1922, pp. 87 ff., 100 ff.).
Some Catholic scholars, while agreeing in defending the full historicity of Ruth, nevertheless date its composition after the exile (P. Jóson, J. Goettsberger—for the Aramaisms; R. Tamisier—for the theological doctrine, the universality of salvation, and the suffering of the just, as in Job). The direction of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, in publishing P. Jóson’s commentary on Ruth, “believes it its duty to state that it considers it much more probable that Ruth was written before the exile. Indeed, the comparison of the language of Ruth, which is little removed from classical Hebrew of the best period (as the author himself admits), is entirely in favor of an early date (cf. the same judgment of S. R. Driver, E. König). The morphological peculiarities noted by the author are genuine archaisms, indicators of a remote era. The serene tone of the narrative, the air of joy that pervades this idyll, are hardly compatible with the painful circumstances that the small Jewish community had to endure upon returning from exile, until Nehemiah’s political efforts triumphed. Finally, the vividness and freshness of the narrative, the abundance of minute details, seem to indicate that the sacred author was not far removed from the events he was recounting” (P. Jóson, p. 13; A. Schulz). The ideas touched upon by Tamisier are found in the oldest Hebrew sources and (regarding the suffering of the just) also in Babylonian sources; nor do they stand out prominently in Ruth.
The various critical opinions that place Ruth after the exile and regard it as a mere novella (J. Wellhausen) motivated by 1 Sam 22:3 (1); a midrash (K. Budde) to inculcate the application of the levirate law (Deut 25:5-10); or as a polemical stance against Deut 23:4 ff.; or more commonly (A. Berthelot, H. Grätz, A. Kuenen, W. Nowack) as a protest against the norms expressed on marriages with foreigners (Ezra 9-10; Neh 13:23-29), are unfounded. Apart from the Aramaisms, these scholars argue from proper names such as Naomi, Mahlon, and Chilion, which they consider symbolic; yet nothing is more difficult or fragile than relying on etymologies. Ruth, Orpah, and Boaz, for example, resist any explanation.
Isolated remain the mythological attempts of H. Winckler, H. Gunkel—rural cult, death and return to life of vegetation, respectively of Tammuz-Ishtar or Isis-Osiris—brought together by M. Haller. And the attempt by E. Reuss to explain “Ephrathites” as “Ephraimites” (Judg 2:5; 1 Sam 1:1), attributing to Ruth the vindication of Judah’s rights over Ephraim! But “Ephrathites” here certainly refers to Bethlehem (1 Sam 17:12; Mic 5:1).
In the Hebrew Bible, Ruth is placed among the *Kethûbîm* (Writings); there is no lack of testimony and evidence that its original place was immediately after the Book of Judges (the Greek Septuagint version, the Vulgate), with which it was sometimes joined (Origen, *In Ps.* 1: PG 12, 1084; St. Jerome, *Prol. gal.*: PL 28, 522 ff.; Melito of Sardis: PG 20, 396; Josephus Flavius, *Contra Apion.*, I, 8). Most likely, the displacement derives from the late grouping of the *mĕgillôth* (v.), in which Ruth occupies the second place: it was read at Pentecost, on account of the vivid description of the barley harvest (Ruth 2-3). The Masoretic text is mediocre; the Septuagint version is literal; the Vulgate is elegant but very free.